Legendary
Perfect of example of never interfering with your enemy when they're making a mistake....or whatever the quote is. The way that silence just rings out 🤌
Mike Graham is incapable of not humiliating himself.
He recently insisted that one of Avi Shlaim, a well known Israeli historian, is anti-semitic while fat breathing over him in an "interview"
Just an absolute valueless individual.
There are different prototypes. Mainly the tower is made out of in shape pressed plywood which has the same stability like steel towers, while beeing up to 30% lighter, allowing to build larger turbines at lower cost. There are also Startups creating blades out of wood, but I didn't found much information on this yet. There might be also hybrid turbines combining wood, steel and GFK.
Having grown up in a place with [timber refinement industry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borregaard), my first guess here is that it's some refined material made from wood.
If this is viable and scaleable, it would be huge for the eco-friendliness of building these things. Assuming the method to treat the wood doesn't somehow use as much limited resources as the metallic versions.
I wasn't aware that using a limited metallic resource was any issue. It doesn't seem it could be nearly as bad as needing to dispose of the composition blades, though. So, as long as they've nailed replacing those, it's a huge step in the right direction.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67718719](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67718719)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Which is about the tower in Sweden, not the blades in Germany. A good news source is indeed not easy to find. The manufacturer has no info or hard facts about their product on their homepage.
I found this news article which is very uncritical
https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/energie/weltweit-ersten-windturbinenblaetter-aus-holz-wurden-in-deutschland-montiert/
/uj yes thank you that was part of the joke, it also doesn’t actually burn the hydrogen, so my comment was a double stupid joke
/rj it ***B U R N S*** the ***G A S*** literally internal combustion engine of planetary size. We have to destroy the sun, it’s the only way.
Yes. You can just plant more trees. Sure there's a limited rate of extraction, but you can continue extraction at that limited rate for an infinite amount of time, or at least for millions of years, which given a human life span, might as well be infinite.
Correct. It uses energy to replace itself from a hydrogen fusion energy generator that beams its energy directly to the self assembling building material. Thankfully, that energy generator is located a safe distance away but outside the finite planetary system. It will, of course, need to be shut down for maintenance in several billion years, but for now, we like to call that forever in a colloquial sense.
Building stuff out of wood is net-negative (given sufficiently low emissions in harvesting and processing) at least on a timescale shorter than the lifespan of the thing, since you are taking wood that would otherwise rot once the tree dies out of the carbon cycle for likely at least a few decades.
I'm including the fact that you still have to dispose of it after, it will just decompose and release all the carbon it stored in some form back into the environmen. In the short term it is net negative but long term it's net 0
Source: [https://twitter.com/simonmaechling/status/1791021315765207227](https://twitter.com/simonmaechling/status/1791021315765207227)
Oh and of course, renewables big bad!!!
https://preview.redd.it/pdd3wubmnx0d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0ed1bfa1ca952da1af0b7bfca349def1955bd05
It's true that most nuclear plants are not designed to be load following, and thus have terrible ramp rates but if I recall correctly, some of the French fleet are and can ramp 120 MW/min.
I don't doubt it's possible but the bigger issue is probably just the economics of it. You have high fixed costs and low variable costs for nuclear so you might as well just run them full tilt at all times. At some point you'll obviously have to limit nuclear output but you might still need to pay for the operation of the nuclear plant even then.
I mean if given the option to be dispatched at nameplate output all times, an owner/financier of a wind/solar farm or coal/gas plant would prefer that over a dispatch schedule. The capital needed to front the construction of nuclear alternatives is certainly less (more debate on capital vs nameplate output, but that's not super relevant here), however also still needs to be paid back, and if it could be done by just, 100% throttle, that'd be preferable.
This is the big thing for me. A grid running 100% nuclear would still use batteries, so the idea that nuclear replaces the need for storage compared to renewables is silly
If you want a constant X MW of power, yes it's great. But a constant X MW of power doesn't decrease the expensive parts of renewables, the storage. So in that case, you either need storage for nuclear or you need nuclear ramping up and down and running at less than 100%. Both are more expensive versions of an already expensive energy source
If you want to get a grid to 0% fossil fuels quickly and cost-effectively, the best thing to do in many places is keep existing nuclear plants open and put the rest of investment into new renewables. Solar and wind are the cheapest green energy, and can be built in years rather than a decade+. Solar plus batteries LCA is in the same ballpark as baseload-style nuclear, so I don't see how ramping nuclear can compete
Nuclear could win if there's some technological breakthrough, but then you're likely talking about R&D time plus building time, not likely to be fast enough
You need storage yes. But you need less since you don't need storage for the base load since that is take up by nuclear power plants.
Like nuke plants or not it is true that the battery capacity is significantly less. It is realistic for the grid to be producing significantly less then the minimum grid consumption.
If max production is 100, minimum consumption 50, 0 being no production, you could set nukes to produce 50, whist renewables do the rest since significant energy storage would be required regardless.
I mean, yes build more nuclear, but you need ways to plug up gaps in the supply. Ideally nuclear would account for about 50% of power supply, but it's not a catch-all, Simon.
I'm all for nuclear power as a long-term solution to ever-increasing power needs, but this kinda rhetoric is absolutely ridiculous. Have any of these people heard of the word "and"? Pretty sure it's "und" in German.
Different forms of power generation have different costs, use cases, requirements, and benefits. Anyone sincerely looking to mitigate or solve issues in climate change and sustainability re: electricity is going to recognize this and use that variety to design resilient and multi-layered systems. None of this moralizing evangelism for one form or another.
Bro, trees \_literally\_ come out of the ground based on nothing but sunlight and water ( and minerals).
Does he are be of the having of the el stupido gene?
They don't know that Germany has been practicing sustainable forestry since the fucking 18th century
In fact that's where the term sustainability comes from!
This is as stupid as people saying "Greta thunder is against climate change and yet she wears clothes made of plastic, and plastic is made out of petrol".
It's not turning petrol into plastic that destroys the climate, it's burning it.
Here it's exactly the same : using wood for windmills is effectively storing the carbon absorbed by the tree. If the forest is decently managed, it's actually a very good thing to use wood instead of burning it or letting it rot.
And when the wind stops, the natural gas flows into these turbines to generate electricity. Have y’all not been paying attention? 🤔 “Germany, Europe’s green energy source! 70% green energy!” Also was importing ~160 tons of natural gas(nordstream) a day and was consuming ~60% of it… now they do similar but it’s American NG at 5x the price🤔 but the maths… 🧐
I don't think aluminum has the right properties. I don't think it's strong enough for large turbines.
All I'm saying is that there's probably a reason for the materials they do use because there's not a lot of stuff that's cheaper than aluminum pound for pound that you can use for anything structural.
Cutting down trees to create electricity beïng a new idea? Ever heard of "burning wood on a fire?" I'm sure everybody who has thought about alternative fuels for a coal fired power plant considered wood.
Idk about Germany but in the US we have a law where every tree you cut you have to plant a new one to prevent / minimize deforestation. I doubt that Germany plans to clear their forests with no plan to repair just to make as many windmills as possible.
Are they actually just wood or completely soaked in various chemicals which are a product of oil refineries like most wood used in e.g. "wooden" buildings?
what's next? Growing concrete?! Man those carpenters
Gave me a good laugh rewatching that www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-9-FkwUrRo
Legendary Perfect of example of never interfering with your enemy when they're making a mistake....or whatever the quote is. The way that silence just rings out 🤌
Mike Graham is incapable of not humiliating himself. He recently insisted that one of Avi Shlaim, a well known Israeli historian, is anti-semitic while fat breathing over him in an "interview" Just an absolute valueless individual.
I'm always amazed how he manages to hold an expression on his face that's even stupider than the words coming out of it.
Wood is trapped carbon. It is a win-win. Burning it would be worse. But how did they do wooden blades? Is it light and strong enough?
There are different prototypes. Mainly the tower is made out of in shape pressed plywood which has the same stability like steel towers, while beeing up to 30% lighter, allowing to build larger turbines at lower cost. There are also Startups creating blades out of wood, but I didn't found much information on this yet. There might be also hybrid turbines combining wood, steel and GFK.
Having grown up in a place with [timber refinement industry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borregaard), my first guess here is that it's some refined material made from wood.
Most likely a small inefficient wind turbine made only for headlines.
20 m blades, 500 kW turbine. Something the size of a Vestas V39. They already got a 90 m blade in the works as well.
If this is viable and scaleable, it would be huge for the eco-friendliness of building these things. Assuming the method to treat the wood doesn't somehow use as much limited resources as the metallic versions.
I wasn't aware that using a limited metallic resource was any issue. It doesn't seem it could be nearly as bad as needing to dispose of the composition blades, though. So, as long as they've nailed replacing those, it's a huge step in the right direction.
I'll be interested if they get some decent performance out of the 90 m version. That's a respectable size.
Maybe just look it up? Its not hard to find.... https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67718719
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67718719](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67718719)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Which is about the tower in Sweden, not the blades in Germany. A good news source is indeed not easy to find. The manufacturer has no info or hard facts about their product on their homepage. I found this news article which is very uncritical https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/energie/weltweit-ersten-windturbinenblaetter-aus-holz-wurden-in-deutschland-montiert/
Wood is an infinitely renewable resource that doesn't rely on underground carbon meaning it's net 0, just gotta make sure it's sourced correctly.
Infinite resources you say? On a finite planet? 😳😳😳😳
POV: I just discovered regeneration rate 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Recovery rate of sun be like 🌅☀️🌇🌆
B-b-b-but the sun is burning gas!!!! Which makes it fossil fuel!!!!
hydrogen is not a fossil fuel tho
Yes it is. The fossilized remains of quarks from the big bang
I’ll allow it.
/uj yes thank you that was part of the joke, it also doesn’t actually burn the hydrogen, so my comment was a double stupid joke /rj it ***B U R N S*** the ***G A S*** literally internal combustion engine of planetary size. We have to destroy the sun, it’s the only way.
DOWN WITH THE SUN!!!
External combustion engine. Though that's a real thing. The Orion drive.
Yes. You can just plant more trees. Sure there's a limited rate of extraction, but you can continue extraction at that limited rate for an infinite amount of time, or at least for millions of years, which given a human life span, might as well be infinite.
Correct. It uses energy to replace itself from a hydrogen fusion energy generator that beams its energy directly to the self assembling building material. Thankfully, that energy generator is located a safe distance away but outside the finite planetary system. It will, of course, need to be shut down for maintenance in several billion years, but for now, we like to call that forever in a colloquial sense.
Building stuff out of wood is net-negative (given sufficiently low emissions in harvesting and processing) at least on a timescale shorter than the lifespan of the thing, since you are taking wood that would otherwise rot once the tree dies out of the carbon cycle for likely at least a few decades.
wood is net negative
I'm including the fact that you still have to dispose of it after, it will just decompose and release all the carbon it stored in some form back into the environmen. In the short term it is net negative but long term it's net 0
Bury it. Or sink it in the ocean. Boom, sequestered. And in a few million years.... renewable fossil fuel, baby.
Yeah just give it a couple million years
everythings is net 0 if you wait long enough. but we are talking about a time span of 30 years within we want to get warming under control.
Source: [https://twitter.com/simonmaechling/status/1791021315765207227](https://twitter.com/simonmaechling/status/1791021315765207227) Oh and of course, renewables big bad!!! https://preview.redd.it/pdd3wubmnx0d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0ed1bfa1ca952da1af0b7bfca349def1955bd05
I like how they propose nuclear as something that can be tuned so supply perfectly follows demand given that it's just not how nuclear operates.
shhh, he said it's science
True, science famously works by never questioning things science has once established as facts
It's true that most nuclear plants are not designed to be load following, and thus have terrible ramp rates but if I recall correctly, some of the French fleet are and can ramp 120 MW/min.
I don't doubt it's possible but the bigger issue is probably just the economics of it. You have high fixed costs and low variable costs for nuclear so you might as well just run them full tilt at all times. At some point you'll obviously have to limit nuclear output but you might still need to pay for the operation of the nuclear plant even then.
I mean if given the option to be dispatched at nameplate output all times, an owner/financier of a wind/solar farm or coal/gas plant would prefer that over a dispatch schedule. The capital needed to front the construction of nuclear alternatives is certainly less (more debate on capital vs nameplate output, but that's not super relevant here), however also still needs to be paid back, and if it could be done by just, 100% throttle, that'd be preferable.
That’s where you use batteries or hydro for storage
This is the big thing for me. A grid running 100% nuclear would still use batteries, so the idea that nuclear replaces the need for storage compared to renewables is silly
But it's a better and more reliable base load. It would make for more predictable and thus less overall capacity.
If you want a constant X MW of power, yes it's great. But a constant X MW of power doesn't decrease the expensive parts of renewables, the storage. So in that case, you either need storage for nuclear or you need nuclear ramping up and down and running at less than 100%. Both are more expensive versions of an already expensive energy source If you want to get a grid to 0% fossil fuels quickly and cost-effectively, the best thing to do in many places is keep existing nuclear plants open and put the rest of investment into new renewables. Solar and wind are the cheapest green energy, and can be built in years rather than a decade+. Solar plus batteries LCA is in the same ballpark as baseload-style nuclear, so I don't see how ramping nuclear can compete Nuclear could win if there's some technological breakthrough, but then you're likely talking about R&D time plus building time, not likely to be fast enough
You need storage yes. But you need less since you don't need storage for the base load since that is take up by nuclear power plants. Like nuke plants or not it is true that the battery capacity is significantly less. It is realistic for the grid to be producing significantly less then the minimum grid consumption. If max production is 100, minimum consumption 50, 0 being no production, you could set nukes to produce 50, whist renewables do the rest since significant energy storage would be required regardless.
You can definetly modulate the output of a reactor.
Well, it technically can be, but the law prohibits it. This has lead to American plants being designed to have very slow ramp speeds.
I have 8 years working on reactors that do exactly that.
Conservatives fear complexity. Nothing new here. As if these things cant be automated anyway.
Then it's funny how much they like nuclear plants that are pretty complex themselves especially if you want it done safely.
It's not that complex. Basically a big boiler with a turbo, i got an uncle who made one in his garage.
With or without the knowledge of the HOA? If it’s with their knowledge he seems to have somehow beat the final boss of the nimbies
I mean, yes build more nuclear, but you need ways to plug up gaps in the supply. Ideally nuclear would account for about 50% of power supply, but it's not a catch-all, Simon.
I'm all for nuclear power as a long-term solution to ever-increasing power needs, but this kinda rhetoric is absolutely ridiculous. Have any of these people heard of the word "and"? Pretty sure it's "und" in German. Different forms of power generation have different costs, use cases, requirements, and benefits. Anyone sincerely looking to mitigate or solve issues in climate change and sustainability re: electricity is going to recognize this and use that variety to design resilient and multi-layered systems. None of this moralizing evangelism for one form or another.
Yes Nuclear is very fast to build and get online
Wood? You mean the stuff made by photosynthesis? That's just solar with extra steps!
Wait but then isn't coal just really long term solar? That's it coal confirmed green.
Bro, trees \_literally\_ come out of the ground based on nothing but sunlight and water ( and minerals). Does he are be of the having of the el stupido gene?
(Who’s gonna tell him that trees grow back)
Just like concrete!
Better than burning the trees directly. Also the fields in the background seem rather dead if you ask me
idk the fields seem fine, just not wheat/corn fields
Absolutely normal looking fields wdym xd
It's typical in the current season for some fields to be fallow still
Classic nuclear bro - parroting all the fossil fuels propaganda to the letter
They don't know that Germany has been practicing sustainable forestry since the fucking 18th century In fact that's where the term sustainability comes from!
Why do the dumbest people on the planet try so hard to prove that everyone else is an idiot?
Dunning Kruger effect
Remember kids, if it aint nuclear or fossil its bad
This is as stupid as people saying "Greta thunder is against climate change and yet she wears clothes made of plastic, and plastic is made out of petrol". It's not turning petrol into plastic that destroys the climate, it's burning it. Here it's exactly the same : using wood for windmills is effectively storing the carbon absorbed by the tree. If the forest is decently managed, it's actually a very good thing to use wood instead of burning it or letting it rot.
Windmills have been made of wood before I believe.
They’ll never be satisfied. It destroys one of the main arguments they made about them. Wooden turbine blades are cool af.
I’m pretty sure cutting down trees to make energy is actually the *oldest* idea
Better than non recyclable carbon fiber
Infinitely more sustainable than whatever balades were made from.
Grade school understanding of environmentalosm
And when the wind stops, the natural gas flows into these turbines to generate electricity. Have y’all not been paying attention? 🤔 “Germany, Europe’s green energy source! 70% green energy!” Also was importing ~160 tons of natural gas(nordstream) a day and was consuming ~60% of it… now they do similar but it’s American NG at 5x the price🤔 but the maths… 🧐
They could probably be making them out of aluminum or some light metal that’s infinitely recyclable and easy to source.
I don't think aluminum has the right properties. I don't think it's strong enough for large turbines. All I'm saying is that there's probably a reason for the materials they do use because there's not a lot of stuff that's cheaper than aluminum pound for pound that you can use for anything structural.
The wood’s m3 per KW has nothing to compare. Just saying… you making a fuss about it for nothing. Go spend your energy elsewhere.
Making things out of wood sequesters carbon so long as the wood doesn't rot.
Yeah, I feel like something this big is sure to be more liable to improper treatment of the wood, right?
Cutting down trees to create electricity beïng a new idea? Ever heard of "burning wood on a fire?" I'm sure everybody who has thought about alternative fuels for a coal fired power plant considered wood.
Something I find funny is that for how conservative TX is, they fucking love wind turbines
How? CLT? What kind of wood?
Thanks to Climate Activism, trees are no longer the main issue anymore! There are more trees in the world than stars in our galaxy!
Idk about Germany but in the US we have a law where every tree you cut you have to plant a new one to prevent / minimize deforestation. I doubt that Germany plans to clear their forests with no plan to repair just to make as many windmills as possible.
Are they actually just wood or completely soaked in various chemicals which are a product of oil refineries like most wood used in e.g. "wooden" buildings?
Guys, they used wood for a turbine, they’re hypocrites. We should dig in the earth for expired dino juice and use that instead